NZDF LTDP 2006 update

[KH-12]

Well a good idea in theory, the practicality of an integrated Radar Network is questionable.

In terms of control of the air, I believe that NZ is already in charge of ATC from the Equator South, which is a huge area and I am sure that the appropriate resources are being committed to it from a purely commercial/civil stand point. Although I must admit I have no real knowledge in this area.

In terms of surface surveillance I think NZ has the 3rd/4th (?) largest EEC in area in the world that extends on all directions.

Now to have an integrated radar surveillance network that could cover even a small amount of this area would be relatively expensive and would INO take money away from the physical assets that would do the most good, i.e. OPV, IPVs, MPAs, UAVs etc..

That does not mean that specific areas can’t/shouldn’t be targeted, if the resource are available.

My thoughts anyway

The Airways corp does control Pacific air traffic but not using primary radar, it uses secondary radar and satelite relay, so you have to rely on the bad guys turning on their transponders in order to be tracked. The primary (active) radar systems around NZ are relatively small in area covered.

I believe that the NZ EEZ is around the 7th or 10th largest depending on which territories you include, still pretty damn big !

Maybe we could rip the APG-66's out of the A4's whack them on a pole and create a total coastal air/surface radar network

 

[Markus40]

From the noises im hearing from the National party, just reinstating the MB339s is only one possibility at this stage. The other one which i do support strongly is the integration of Australian Aircraft based here in NZ, such as at Whenuapei or Ohakea. This of course would require some expansion and modifications to the existing infrastructure. John Key is a strong advocate of keeping the base open at Whenuapei, and so using it could mean that NZ might not even need to set up its own squadron.

From what i have learnt National want to have a referendum on Defence, so that too i believe is a good option to see how the public feel in general about the issues of Defence.

 

[Tasman]

Yep - Labour has philosophical issues with using fast jets for anything - in fact I'm surprised they haven't jumped on Wayne Mapp's (opposition defence spokesman) suggestion of using the MD-339's for training!

National on the other hand don't yet know what they want to do for defence. They say they want to spend more - but at the same time are determined to cut govt spending - and it was THEM that slashed the defence budget in 1990 that ultimately caused the NZDF to start imploding.

National have mentioned looking at use of the MB-339 fleet for Army & Navy training - excellent idea given the shelf-life left on them & the likely low utilisation rate. But they have clearly shut-out an air-combat fleet - so it's the MB-339 or nothing. Yes they could provide some 'domestic defence' but the likelihood of this is low I'd suspect.

As a matter of interest how is NZ currently training its Hercules, Orion, 757and helo pilots?

I would have thought that at least some training in an aircraft like the MB339 would have been useful to sharpen skill levels for Kiwi pilots regardless of what they end up flying operationally. It seems a big jump to go from a CT-4 Airtrainer to a Kingair B200 to a Boeing 757! A modern fast turboprop like the PC-21 would help bridge the gap but as the MB339s are available I think this is a another good reason to use at least some of them. I guess many of the current front line multi engine pilots would have experienced flying MB339s prior to them being taken out of service but as new pilots come into the service I think there would be a real advantage in providing fast jet experience.

Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

The Airways corp does control Pacific air traffic but not using primary radar, it uses secondary radar and satelite relay, so you have to rely on the bad guys turning on their transponders in order to be tracked. The primary (active) radar systems around NZ are relatively small in area covered.

I believe that the NZ EEZ is around the 7th or 10th largest depending on which territories you include, still pretty damn big !

Maybe we could rip the APG-66's out of the A4's whack them on a pole and create a total coastal air/surface radar network

I believe that the ATC, as mentioned above, relies on transponders onboard the aircraft. Does anyone know if NZ uses ADS-B with Mode-S transponders?

If the transponders are shut down, then the primary radar return is the only method to locate/track an aircraft. As discussed in Chapt. 1 of the Final Report (aka The 9/11 Commission Report) of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, once three of the hijacked aircraft turned off their transponders, it became very difficult for air traffic controllers to locate them. Though NZ might have less difficulty than US air traffic controllers did in a "9/11"-type scenario. For one thing, the Boston-NYC-DC corridor is a heavily trafficked area, with large numbers of both domestic and international flights. The other reason NZ might encounter less of a problem is that NZ might very well have a more up-to-date ATC system than the US. While I'm unfamiliar with the current state of US civil ATC , I do remember reading in the early 90's, a story about either an FAA official or US DOT Secretary traveling in Europe. Basically, on an official trip, they took a tour of a German aviation museum, and were somewhat disturbed when seeing the ATC exhibit. The mockup which was made to resemble German ATC from some years before, had the same equipment the US was using at the time of the visit.

As for a surveillance radar, this article from Defense Industry Daily is what caused me to consider the idea.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...veillance-radars-in-dutch-caribbean/index.php
While no range is mentioned, the eight units purchased were to cost a total of only US$12 million, or US$1.5 million per... I would imagine there might be increased costs due to the greater distances potentially involved, but even limited radar coverage could reduce the need for patrolling in some areas. This would allow patrols to be concentrated in areas where ground-based assets aren't of use.

Another radar network that might be of interest is the Australian SECAR
http://www.daronmont.com.au/products_secar.htm
This is designed for EEZ surveillance. Assuming the costing isn't too great, it could significantly boost the effectiveness of NZ assets for both security and EEZ patrol.

Another thing to consider, at least with regards to radar. As I understand it, some of the Australian radar systems can monitor air and ship traffic around NZ, from the Australian mainland. While I don't know exactly how cooperative Australia would feel in such a situation, NZ might ask Australia with a radar "feed" to see what's going on around NZ itself. I don't think it would be too painful to at least ask.

-Cheers

 

[Whiskyjack]

From the noises im hearing from the National party, just reinstating the MB339s is only one possibility at this stage. The other one which i do support strongly is the integration of Australian Aircraft based here in NZ, such as at Whenuapei or Ohakea. This of course would require some expansion and modifications to the existing infrastructure. John Key is a strong advocate of keeping the base open at Whenuapei, and so using it could mean that NZ might not even need to set up its own squadron.

From what i have learnt National want to have a referendum on Defence, so that too i believe is a good option to see how the public feel in general about the issues of Defence.

While I know that is being floated, the Aussies are not keen on it at all. Their defence posture is North and the thought of sending there aircraft 2,500km further to the south-east is, not surprisingly, not a popular concept.

For the cost of the upgrades, and the cost of actually making it worth their while to be here, you probably would pay the same as buying new strike aircraft!!

Something else to consider is hosting a 'joint aggressor/maritime strike' training facility that would also bring in Singapore and maybe Malaysia as well as Australia. It would definitely require the reactivation of the 339s IMO. But once again when you look at the amount of real-estate and the proximity to the countries, then Australia would be hard to beat!

Agree a referendum on defence is ideal as is consulting the public on defence policy as part of any whitepaper.

Also agree that Whenuapei needs to be kept open.

 

[Markus40]

The referendum that national proposes to do sends shudders down my spine in many ways due to the publics mis informed status and current level of education to the fact. Its like asking a bunch of dumbies in a classroom if defence is needed, because most will turn round and say, "defence isnt needed to our benign nature in the region" and having defence means we are in with the ANZUS agreement again and it means bringing in the nuclear debate. Our own country is "brainwashed" on defence issues thanks due to the Labour party. I do think the Labour party however is changing tack slowly, but i think its too late.

Yes, the cost of stationing Australias F18s here might be as expensive as actually buying them in the first place, however thats why my argument on having our own combat wing would equally be just as good if not better.

Hosting other aircraft from other countries could be good, but politically inconvenient. Due to the publics misconception on defence. I really like the idea, but i do think there would be a crisis in the Beehive over it.

While I know that is being floated, the Aussies are not keen on it at all. Their defence posture is North and the thought of sending there aircraft 2,500km further to the south-east is, not surprisingly, not a popular concept.

For the cost of the upgrades, and the cost of actually making it worth their while to be here, you probably would pay the same as buying new strike aircraft!!

Something else to consider is hosting a 'joint aggressor/maritime strike' training facility that would also bring in Singapore and maybe Malaysia as well as Australia. It would definitely require the reactivation of the 339s IMO. But once again when you look at the amount of real-estate and the proximity to the countries, then Australia would be hard to beat!

Agree a referendum on defence is ideal as is consulting the public on defence policy as part of any whitepaper.

Also agree that Whenuapei needs to be kept open.

 

[Whiskyjack]

The referendum that national proposes to do sends shudders down my spine in many ways due to the publics mis informed status and current level of education to the fact. Its like asking a bunch of dumbies in a classroom if defence is needed, because most will turn round and say, "defence isnt needed to our benign nature in the region" and having defence means we are in with the ANZUS agreement again and it means bringing in the nuclear debate. Our own country is "brainwashed" on defence issues thanks due to the Labour party. I do think the Labour party however is changing tack slowly, but i think its too late.

Yes, the cost of stationing Australias F18s here might be as expensive as actually buying them in the first place, however thats why my argument on having our own combat wing would equally be just as good if not better.

Hosting other aircraft from other countries could be good, but politically inconvenient. Due to the publics misconception on defence. I really like the idea, but i do think there would be a crisis in the Beehive over it.

To be fair every poll done in the last 15 years that I am aware of has had a 70-80% support for a 'Strong Effective Defence Force'. Where it all falls down is when the debate turns to cost and platforms. 50%+ support for allowing Nuke powered vessels into ports as well.

My comments around the cost were more to illustrate how impractical the suggestion is from various commentators. IMO it is only being floated to spark debate, which is a good thing. The only way a foreign, modern strike force would be based here is if there was a strategic reason, which there isn't, which also, unfortunately, leads to the reason why the RNZAF will not fly modern strike again. Unless there is a change in the environment, i.e. a foreign military base in Fiji, Samoa etc..

The more and more I think on using the 339s as training/aggressor aircraft to train allies, the more I like it. Would defray the cost to NZ, by getting others to pay for it.

Not sure if anyone, like Singapore, would be interested though. It is actually more politically sellable for the current Govt as well IMO. It gives them a logical ‘out’.

 

[Markus40]

If the polls have shown over the last 15 years that 70-80% support a strong effective defence force, then why is it that the NZ defence forces are far from that, and government is still putting in the minimum amounts of expenditure to keep the levels of defence going the way they are.? (Comment made by John Carter). I believe he is absolutely right, and im sure we would have seen far more opposition to the way defence has been funded giving the percentage of 70-80 % wanting a stronger defence force.

I personally think its the 70-80 % of people that dont give a shit that makes this more likely.

I dont think the national party would make "of the cap" comments about basing Australian F18s here unless there was favour of it happening from the Australians in the first place. Besides basing aircraft here from Australia despite being in the South East of the Pacific and if properly managed and funded from both states could work out to be a very good Defence working relationship. I do realise that the RAAF do base alot of the fighter squadrons on the East and North of Australia, but thats not to say they couldnt or wouldnt be able to utilize a base in NZ.

To be fair every poll done in the last 15 years that I am aware of has had a 70-80% support for a 'Strong Effective Defence Force'. Where it all falls down is when the debate turns to cost and platforms. 50%+ support for allowing Nuke powered vessels into ports as well.

My comments around the cost were more to illustrate how impractical the suggestion is from various commentators. IMO it is only being floated to spark debate, which is a good thing. The only way a foreign, modern strike force would be based here is if there was a strategic reason, which there isn't, which also, unfortunately, leads to the reason why the RNZAF will not fly modern strike again. Unless there is a change in the environment, i.e. a foreign military base in Fiji, Samoa etc..

The more and more I think on using the 339s as training/aggressor aircraft to train allies, the more I like it. Would defray the cost to NZ, by getting others to pay for it.

Not sure if anyone, like Singapore, would be interested though. It is actually more politically sellable for the current Govt as well IMO. It gives them a logical ‘out’.

 

[Whiskyjack]

If the polls have shown over the last 15 years that 70-80% support a strong effective defence force, then why is it that the NZ defence forces are far from that, and government is still putting in the minimum amounts of expenditure to keep the levels of defence going the way they are.? (Comment made by John Carter). I believe he is absolutely right, and im sure we would have seen far more opposition to the way defence has been funded giving the percentage of 70-80 % wanting a stronger defence force.

I personally think its the 70-80 % of people that dont give a shit that makes this more likely.

I am of two minds about this, yes the public has allowed Defence spending to decline, but when I think back to the public-out cry over the ANZAC frigate purchase in the late 80’s compared the public reaction to Purchases and funding announcements (which have all been benign acceptance to billions of dollars of announcements) it all comes down to one thing. The public is happy to spend money when it perceives the Govt has money to spend. There has been no traction over opposition attempts to bring defence into focus.

Yes people want a strong defence, but they also want Education and Health etc, and will always fight for what effects them directly!

I dont think the national party would make "of the cap" comments about basing Australian F18s here unless there was favour of it happening from the Australians in the first place. Besides basing aircraft here from Australia despite being in the South East of the Pacific and if properly managed and funded from both states could work out to be a very good Defence working relationship. I do realise that the RAAF do base alot of the fighter squadrons on the East and North of Australia, but thats not to say they couldnt or wouldnt be able to utilize a base in NZ.

If you don’t think the National Party (or any other party) would make off the cap comments then I think you are sadly misinformed! We see it all the time across multiple portfolios! I have been caught out be a few myself over the years!

While deployments of strike aircraft are a possibility the basing of RAAF strike aircraft in NZ just will not happen. No one I have talked to, either political or defence backgrounds have any idea about this. And they are people who should know! I am sure the RAAF brass would have screaming fits!
Of course the discovery of 50 billion barrels of crude under Rangitoto may change things!
But maybe one of our Australian friends can give us their perspective?

 

[Tasman]

IWhile deployments of strike aircraft are a possibility the basing of RAAF strike aircraft in NZ just will not happen. No one I have talked to, either political or defence backgrounds have any idea about this. And they are people who should know! I am sure the RAAF brass would have screaming fits!
Of course the discovery of 50 billion barrels of crude under Rangitoto may change things!
But maybe one of our Australian friends can give us their perspective?

I can't see any benefits to the RAAF from basing strike aircraft in NZ. The RAAF has consolidated the operations of the Air Combat Group at two main bases, Amberley, near Brisbane, Queensland (F111C/G) and Williamtown, near Newcastle, New South Wales (FA18A/B and Hawk 127). One squadron of Hornets is forward deployed to Tindal, near Katherine, Northern Territory, and a Hawk 127 squadron operates from Pearce, near Perth, Western Australia. Consolidating the basing of assets in peacetime has economic, support and training benefits. To base a squadron in NZ would have a negative impact on these aspects and it would also delay the speed with which strike aircraft from the Eastern bases can be deployed to the North.

What I think might be feasible would be more regular deployments of RAAF combat aircraft to NZ for exercises with the NZDF. This would be a way to provide support for NZ army and naval units and it would give the RAAF additional experience operating in a different environment. I also think an annual major exercise in NZ involving all three ADF services would be mutually beneficial.

Cheers

 

[Whiskyjack]

I can't see any benefits to the RAAF from basing strike aircraft in NZ. The RAAF has consolidated the operations of the Air Combat Group at two main bases, Amberley, near Brisbane, Queensland (F111C/G) and Williamtown, near Newcastle, New South Wales (FA18A/B and Hawk 127). One squadron of Hornets is forward deployed to Tindal, near Katherine, Northern Territory, and a Hawk 127 squadron operates from Pearce, near Perth, Western Australia. Consolidating the basing of assets in peacetime has economic, support and training benefits. To base a squadron in NZ would have a negative impact on these aspects and it would also delay the speed with which strike aircraft from the Eastern bases can be deployed to the North.

What I think might be feasible would be more regular deployments of RAAF combat aircraft to NZ for exercises with the NZDF. This would be a way to provide support for NZ army and naval units and it would give the RAAF additional experience operating in a different environment. I also think an annual major exercise in NZ involving all three ADF services would be mutually beneficial.

Cheers

I think that in General the exercises are happening anyway, either the ADF comes to NZ or the NZDF goes to Australia. The nature and scale may change form year to year.

 

[Tasman]

I think that in General the exercises are happening anyway, either the ADF comes to NZ or the NZDF goes to Australia. The nature and scale may change form year to year.

I agree that this is the case. I would just like to see them held on a more regular basis. I think, for example, that the Hawk LIF squadron from Williamtown could be tasked with providing regular support for the NZ navy and army. Maybe an additional flight, manned fully or partly by Kiwis, could be added to this squadron. I think an additional half a dozen aircraft would be a small but effective investment.

Having said that my first preference would still be the reactivation of the MB339s, but a Kiwi flight added to the RAAF's 76 Squadron would be a useful additional asset for both countries.

Cheers

 

[Whiskyjack]

I agree that this is the case. I would just like to see them held on a more regular basis. I think, for example, that the Hawk LIF squadron from Williamtown could be tasked with providing regular support for the NZ navy and army. Maybe an additional flight, manned fully or partly by Kiwis, could be added to this squadron. I think an additional half a dozen aircraft would be a small but effective investment.

Agree, I stand to be corrected, but I think the RNZN frigates go through pre-deployment operational readiness exercises off the coast of NSW using the RAN umpires. Can’t for the life of me remember the name of this process.

Having said that my first preference would still be the reactivation of the MB339s, but a Kiwi flight added to the RAAF's 76 Squadron would be a useful additional asset for both countries.

Cheers

Totally agree that the first preference would be the MB339s.

 

[Markus40]

Yes, the reactivation of the MB339s sounds good to some degree for the NZ defence forces ONLY, but i really dont see why there couldnt be a Squadron of Hawks from Australia based here on a rotational basis, training the NZ Defence forces and working along side the MB339s. It was National that did suggest basing RAAF aircraft in NZ. However in view of the MB339s being the only possible option for a come back, i still think Nationals suggestion on the topic still has merit, due to NZ and Australias close defence arrangements and support. Maybe we will start seeing this out in the open once a referendum is made. So if you think that any government can make "of the cap" comments as you suggest, then it is quite likely that as you have been caught out during the years that in fact this still could be a likely scenerio. Just a thought.

I understand that the building structures are still there at Ohakea that used to house the A4s and this could be utilized for the Hawks on the rotations. The more i think of this the better it sounds and makes good political and military sense. There is little infrastructure costs needed, as they are there, and as the runway has been lengthened and extended and now will have taxi ways put in, makes good sense. I realise this is for the basing of all the airlift components at Ohakea which im not in favour of and to close Whenuapei, which is simply crazy.

 

[Markus40]

Tasman, can you explain to me why there would be a negative impact on basing a small number of Hawks to Train the NZDFs in NZ, during peacetime operations.? This was if the National or Labour governments came to some agreement to base the Hawks here. Which i think is a good idea.

You mentioned that they would be needed so they can be urgently deployed to the Northern bases. If they (the Hawks) were based here on a rotational basis which i think is a good idea, would you not think that the Australian government would have them moved out of Ohakea at a moments notice, so they can be deployed North? IE Amberley, Brisbane? Would it not take equally to some extent the same time to activate the Hawk out of Pearce AFB to Tindal, as it would out of Ohakea and move them to Williamtown?

If the Hawk was urgently required out of Ohakea, which i believe simply wouldnt happen as the Australian Ministry of Defence would have their assets in place long before an incident or emergency arose, then there wouldnt be the urgency of getting the Hawk North. They would simply, under orders get their jets to their required bases. Thats the most likely scenario.

Training a squadron of Hawks alongside the MB339 is hardly a negative aspect when it comes down to economics and support, as this would be provided here in return for training our Navy and Army and Airforce.

The feasibility of regular rotational deployments on a say 3 monthly cycle is far better in economics by basing the Hawks in NZ, than for them to be coming and going. So regular, deployments of a squadron wouldnt in my view be any better than having a more permanent rotational deployment basis.

I can't see any benefits to the RAAF from basing strike aircraft in NZ. The RAAF has consolidated the operations of the Air Combat Group at two main bases, Amberley, near Brisbane, Queensland (F111C/G) and Williamtown, near Newcastle, New South Wales (FA18A/B and Hawk 127). One squadron of Hornets is forward deployed to Tindal, near Katherine, Northern Territory, and a Hawk 127 squadron operates from Pearce, near Perth, Western Australia. Consolidating the basing of assets in peacetime has economic, support and training benefits. To base a squadron in NZ would have a negative impact on these aspects and it would also delay the speed with which strike aircraft from the Eastern bases can be deployed to the North.

What I think might be feasible would be more regular deployments of RAAF combat aircraft to NZ for exercises with the NZDF. This would be a way to provide support for NZ army and naval units and it would give the RAAF additional experience operating in a different environment. I also think an annual major exercise in NZ involving all three ADF services would be mutually beneficial.

Cheers

 

[Tasman]

Tasman, can you explain to me why there would be a negative impact on basing a small number of Hawks to Train the NZDFs in NZ, during peacetime operations.? This was if the National or Labour governments came to some agreement to base the Hawks here. Which i think is a good idea.

Markus I think it comes down to costs. The cost of running a permanent base for a small number of aircraft is uneconomical. The RAAF concentrates most of its Air Combat Group (ACG) at Amberley and Williamtown. Both have a large number of aircraft and extensive support facilities. The other bases with elements of the ACG are at Tindal and Pearce. Only one squadron is deployed to each of these but Pearce has significant support facilities because it is also the home of the RAAF's No 2 Flying Training School (PC9s). Pearce also provides vital support for operations of Western Australia so having the Hawks there is important to the RAN. Whilst Tindal has only 1 operational squadron it is the RAAF's frontline northern base. It also has extensive support facilities because other frontline aircraft regularly deploy there. To move a squadron out of Williamtown would be costly in terms of economics and it would also move the LIF squadron away from the Hornet OCU. To base it in NZ would make the squadron's interaction with other units of the ACG much more difficult. It's not just the cost of basing a squadron in NZ, its the fact that support personnel would be moved away from other squadrons in the ACG.

You mentioned that they would be needed so they can be urgently deployed to the Northern bases. If they (the Hawks) were based here on a rotational basis which i think is a good idea, would you not think that the Australian government would have them moved out of Ohakea at a moments notice, so they can be deployed North? IE Amberley, Brisbane? Would it not take equally to some extent the same time to activate the Hawk out of Pearce AFB to Tindal, as it would out of Ohakea and move them to Williamtown?

If the Hawk was urgently required out of Ohakea, which i believe simply wouldnt happen as the Australian Ministry of Defence would have their assets in place long before an incident or emergency arose, then there wouldnt be the urgency of getting the Hawk North. They would simply, under orders get their jets to their required bases. Thats the most likely scenario.

In the case of the Pearce based Hawks I think it is likely that they would remain in an emergency in order to provide support to Fleet Base West and emergency air defence for the Perth area. A squadron based in NZ could deploy to a northern base but not as quickly as if it could from SE Australia.

I am not saying that this could not be done just that I can't see sufficient benefits to justify the RAAF completely reorganising their structure.

Training a squadron of Hawks alongside the MB339 is hardly a negative aspect when it comes down to economics and support, as this would be provided here in return for training our Navy and Army and Airforce.

The feasibility of regular rotational deployments on a say 3 monthly cycle is far better in economics by basing the Hawks in NZ, than for them to be coming and going. So regular, deployments of a squadron wouldnt in my view be any better than having a more permanent rotational deployment basis.

The RAAF has chosen to base the Hawks of 76 squadron alongside the Hornets of the OCU and the 2 frontline squadrons rather than base the squadron elsewhere in Australia. For the same reason I doubt it would want to base them permanently in NZ. To base even a flight in NZ, or somewhere else in Australia for that matter, would involve more than just the aircraft and their pilots. Maintenance personnel and logistical support structures would have to be moved out of Williamtown to the probable detriment of the squadrons remaining there. Again, it could be done but, in my opinion, it would be economically and logistically difficult.

A deployment, whilst obviously requiring support, doesn't require all of the group's logistical and support structures to move with the deployed aircraft.

The only possibility that I think might be realistically feasible would be if a government to government agreement was to fund an additional flight for 76 squadron, perhaps manned fully or partly by Kiwis, as I suggested earlier. If it was funded by the NZ Government this flight could perhaps be based in NZ alongside the MB339s with aircraft rotating back to Williamtown for major maintenance.

Cheers

 

[old faithful]

I could be way off track here (but i dont think im to far wrong), but every state likes to have garrison towns. In Darwin,Palmerston has really grown and employment soared when 1 BDE relocated from Sydney. Singleton would really miss the Army as would Wagga miss both the Army and RAAF. Australia is littered with communities that would really miss the services that are there. To take a sqn of aircraft and their support sqns would upset the economys of some town, and maybe lose an election for some one. i dont see Aust baseing air assets permanently in NZ, however, regular exercises would be an option.

 

[Todjaeger]

Tasman, can you explain to me why there would be a negative impact on basing a small number of Hawks to Train the NZDFs in NZ, during peacetime operations.? This was if the National or Labour governments came to some agreement to base the Hawks here. Which i think is a good idea.

You mentioned that they would be needed so they can be urgently deployed to the Northern bases. If they (the Hawks) were based here on a rotational basis which i think is a good idea, would you not think that the Australian government would have them moved out of Ohakea at a moments notice, so they can be deployed North? IE Amberley, Brisbane? Would it not take equally to some extent the same time to activate the Hawk out of Pearce AFB to Tindal, as it would out of Ohakea and move them to Williamtown?

If the Hawk was urgently required out of Ohakea, which i believe simply wouldnt happen as the Australian Ministry of Defence would have their assets in place long before an incident or emergency arose, then there wouldnt be the urgency of getting the Hawk North. They would simply, under orders get their jets to their required bases. Thats the most likely scenario.

Training a squadron of Hawks alongside the MB339 is hardly a negative aspect when it comes down to economics and support, as this would be provided here in return for training our Navy and Army and Airforce.

The feasibility of regular rotational deployments on a say 3 monthly cycle is far better in economics by basing the Hawks in NZ, than for them to be coming and going. So regular, deployments of a squadron wouldnt in my view be any better than having a more permanent rotational deployment basis.

I had mentioned either earlier on this thread, or in another thread about NZ hosting RAAF Hawk 127s. As I found out, there are issues with doing this, even if NZ covers the operational costs. Given the numbers of Hawk 127s the RAAF has, they are needed for training of RAAF pilots. Without adding an additional squadron of Hawks and have NZ pick up the operational costs for a training squadron based in NZ, I don't see a viable way for the RAAF to do so. At least, not without having a negative impact on RAAF training. Basically, if the RAAF is to base aircraft in NZ, there has to be some advantage for the RAAF/ADF to do so. Right now, I haven't heard anything that would be considered an "advantage".

As for purchasing another squadron of Hawk 127s... Given that there already is a squadron of MB-339CB trainers, I don't think the additional expense would make sense. Now, if NZ "gifted" the RAAF with the MB-339, and the RAAF accepted them, then perhaps the RAAF operating a training squadron in NZ might happen. Again, NZ would probably need to assume some of the costs of operation. I do definately think NZ needs to keep some of the RNZAF bases open and able to host RAAF aircraft though. In the event that something happens where Australia does need to come to New Zealand's aide, there also needs to be infrastructure in place, otherwise there will be limits on how much aide can be provided.

My $0.02 at least.

-Cheers

 

[Tasman]

I could be way off track here (but i dont think im to far wrong), but every state likes to have garrison towns. In Darwin,Palmerston has really grown and employment soared when 1 BDE relocated from Sydney. Singleton would really miss the Army as would Wagga miss both the Army and RAAF. Australia is littered with communities that would really miss the services that are there. To take a sqn of aircraft and their support sqns would upset the economys of some town, and maybe lose an election for some one. i dont see Aust baseing air assets permanently in NZ, however, regular exercises would be an option.

You've raised another important factor that would influence the relocation of an RAAF squadron, which is politics. I can imagine that there would be an outcry from Tasmania, for example, which has no RAAF operational units (just recruiting officers co-located at the army barracks and a non flying reserve squadron), if an operational squadron was transferred to New Zealand. As Todjaeger said there would need to be some obvious benefits to the RAAF and Australia for this to happen.

If, however, NZ were to fund such a move, thus saving the Australian taxpayer money, that would be a different story, as there would then be an obvious benefit. The RAAF, though, would still want to ensure that the disadvantages it would have from relocation of 76 squadron to NZ, that I mentioned in my previous post, were offset by the funding arrangement. As I said earlier the addition of another flight to the squadron, which would give it 2 operations flights (for fleet and army support) and one training flight, would enable one of the operations flights to be based in NZ without effecting the LIF operations at Williamtown. The cost to NZ would be the funding of the additional aircraft (say 6-7) and the ongoing expense of supporting operations. Rotating the aircraft back to Australia for other than routine maintenance would mean that a lot of the expensive support infrastructure needed to maintain the Hawks would not have to be duplicated. This would be a bit like a reverse version of the 1990's arrangement when Kiwi A4Ks were based in Australia.

Cheers

 

[Markus40]

If the cost of running a permanent base is uneconomical as you say for a small number of aircraft then i would have to assume that reinstating the MB339s and operating them at Ohakea, is a no brainer. Am i right.? Let us make sure we have the right information here. Ohakea does have all the support facilities in place already, and like the previous A4 skyhawk that was based there has the infrastructure that was already used and could be reinstated at a moments notice. I hardly believe for one moment that there would be a huge cost to NZ in enhancing the existing bases structure. So lets get that one out of the way. So firstly, the Hawk CAN be based here on having the structures in place already.

Secondly, there is the costs associated by means of the RAAF basing their aircraft at Ohakea. As you have mentioned. I agree with you that there would be, but we have overlooked one aspect of this argument. The stationing of the Hawk cannot go ahead without both governments approval in the project. As well, the costs. If both governments was to put in a equal share of the costs of the hawk being here IE Transfer costs, repositioning costs, running costs, pilot and maintenance personell costs etc this would be kept at a minimum and i am convinced that there wouldnt be an issue here. The tarmac maintenance personell could easily be trained quickly if we dont have them already. In fact i think we have them already.

The other possibility would be to have Woodbourne used as the maintenance base for repairs, if needed for the Hawke. Its already used for maintaining the A4s and MB339s and upgrades on other aircraft. I believe Safe Air run on contract by the Airforce do this work. The structure and know how is all here Tasman, just need someone like me and others to run with it. The whole concept is definitly possible.

The garrison town mentality for military installations despite having the attachments they have economically maybe, and especially to the size they are in Australia, may make a small "dent" in the relocation of the hawk squadron on a 3 month cycle rotation. However, its hardly going to make a dent in a large base structure within Australia. I think any person familiar with military deployments realise the inevitable aspect of military life is that they will be deployed out of the country at any notice. So sorry, i cant believe that. If it does make a difference then an arrangement could mean in the long term plan is that NZ start to buy the Hawk, by having a pay it off method thus having the aircraft available immediatly for operations, and its here in NZ that NZ can train with the Australian Hawk and MB339. Im only talking about a small squadron of around 12 aircraft.

The other subject of taking a squadron OUT of the exisiting force structure within the RAAF. I could be wrong here but i would suspect like many airforces around the world and in this case that not all the Hawks would be used in training as their primary function. Yes some would need maintenance and some on standby but to my knowledge of the 30-40 Hawks in service that not all are training RAAF pilots. This means that a SMALL number of these could be utilized and transfered to NZ where all the maintenance and opilot training and traing of the the Navy, Army and Airforce could be undertaken.

To conclude: The more i think about this option the better it gets. I think it does have validity, and benefits the Airforce structure of both NZ and Australia. Giving RAAF pilots the ability to operate with their kiwi counterparts. Also giving RAN units on exercises the ability to operate from a different region gaining experience on our geo area.

Markus I think it comes down to costs. The cost of running a permanent base for a small number of aircraft is uneconomical. The RAAF concentrates most of its Air Combat Group (ACG) at Amberley and Williamtown. Both have a large number of aircraft and extensive support facilities. The other bases with elements of the ACG are at Tindal and Pearce. Only one squadron is deployed to each of these but Pearce has significant support facilities because it is also the home of the RAAF's No 2 Flying Training School (PC9s). Pearce also provides vital support for operations of Western Australia so having the Hawks there is important to the RAN. Whilst Tindal has only 1 operational squadron it is the RAAF's frontline northern base. It also has extensive support facilities because other frontline aircraft regularly deploy there. To move a squadron out of Williamtown would be costly in terms of economics and it would also move the LIF squadron away from the Hornet OCU. To base it in NZ would make the squadron's interaction with other units of the ACG much more difficult. It's not just the cost of basing a squadron in NZ, its the fact that support personnel would be moved away from other squadrons in the ACG.



In the case of the Pearce based Hawks I think it is likely that they would remain in an emergency in order to provide support to Fleet Base West and emergency air defence for the Perth area. A squadron based in NZ could deploy to a northern base but not as quickly as if it could from SE Australia.

I am not saying that this could not be done just that I can't see sufficient benefits to justify the RAAF completely reorganising their structure.



The RAAF has chosen to base the Hawks of 76 squadron alongside the Hornets of the OCU and the 2 frontline squadrons rather than base the squadron elsewhere in Australia. For the same reason I doubt it would want to base them permanently in NZ. To base even a flight in NZ, or somewhere else in Australia for that matter, would involve more than just the aircraft and their pilots. Maintenance personnel and logistical support structures would have to be moved out of Williamtown to the probable detriment of the squadrons remaining there. Again, it could be done but, in my opinion, it would be economically and logistically difficult.

A deployment, whilst obviously requiring support, doesn't require all of the group's logistical and support structures to move with the deployed aircraft.

The only possibility that I think might be realistically feasible would be if a government to government agreement was to fund an additional flight for 76 squadron, perhaps manned fully or partly by Kiwis, as I suggested earlier. If it was funded by the NZ Government this flight could perhaps be based in NZ alongside the MB339s with aircraft rotating back to Williamtown for major maintenance.

Cheers